mtd-utils: Upgrade to 2.0.0
PATCH 1/1 mtd-utils: Upgrade to 2.0.0
Upstream has started using automake which means that the recipe must now inherit from autotools and pkgconfig.
The source tree has been reorganised too which requires the paths in the patches to be modified. None of the patches appear to have been applied upstream.
--- meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-Fix-build-with-musl.patch | 4 ++-- .../mtd/mtd-utils/add-exclusion-to-mkfs-jffs2-git-2.patch | 2 +- meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/fix-armv7-neon-alignment.patch | 4 ++-- ...-utils-fix-corrupt-cleanmarker-with-flash_erase--j-command.patch | 4 ++-- meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb | 6 ++++-- 5 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/0001-Fix-build-with-musl.patch +2 -2
@@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <[email protected]> diff --git a/mkfs.jffs2.c b/mkfs.jffs2.c index f09c0b2..ed2dc43 100644 ---- a/mkfs.jffs2.c -+++ b/mkfs.jffs2.c +--- a/jffsX-utils/mkfs.jffs2.c ++++ b/jffsX-utils/mkfs.jffs2.c @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ #include <byteswap.h> #include <crc32.h>
meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/add-exclusion-to-mkfs-jffs2-git-2.patch +1 -1
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Upstream-Status: Pending --- /tmp/mkfs.jffs2.c 2009-01-11 15:28:41.000000000 +0100 -+++ git/mkfs.jffs2.c 2009-01-11 15:59:29.000000000 +0100 ++++ git/jffsX-utils/mkfs.jffs2.c 2009-01-11 15:59:29.000000000 +0100 @@ -100,6 +100,11 @@ struct rb_node hardlink_rb; };
meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/fix-armv7-neon-alignment.patch +2 -2
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ Signed-off-by: Yuanjie Huang <[email protected]> diff --git a/mkfs.ubifs/key.h b/mkfs.ubifs/key.h index d3a02d4..e7e9218 100644 ---- a/mkfs.ubifs/key.h -+++ b/mkfs.ubifs/key.h +--- a/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/key.h ++++ b/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/key.h @@ -141,10 +141,12 @@ static inline void data_key_init(union ubifs_key *key, ino_t inum, */ static inline void key_write(const union ubifs_key *from, void *to)
meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils/mtd-utils-fix-corrupt-cleanmarker-with-flash_erase--j-command.patch +2 -2
@@ -49,8 +49,8 @@ v2 : get length of availble freeoob bytes from oobinfo information, diff --git a/flash_erase.c b/flash_erase.c index 933373a..4b9d84b 100644 ---- a/flash_erase.c -+++ b/flash_erase.c +--- a/misc-utils/flash_erase.c ++++ b/misc-utils/flash_erase.c @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) bool isNAND; int error = 0;
meta/recipes-devtools/mtd/mtd-utils_git.bb +4 -2
@@ -5,11 +5,13 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2+" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \ file://include/common.h;beginline=1;endline=17;md5=ba05b07912a44ea2bf81ce409380049c" +inherit autotools pkgconfig + DEPENDS = "zlib lzo e2fsprogs util-linux" -PV = "1.5.2" +PV = "2.0.0" -SRCREV = "aea36417067dade75192bafa03af70b6eb2677b1" +SRCREV = "1bfee8660131fca7a18f68e9548a18ca6b3378a0" SRC_URI = "git://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git \ file://add-exclusion-to-mkfs-jffs2-git-2.patch \ file://fix-armv7-neon-alignment.patch \
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
Hi,
Quoted 7 lines · Mike Crowe
Upstream has started using automake which means that the recipe must now inherit from autotools and pkgconfig.
The source tree has been reorganised too which requires the paths in the patches to be modified. None of the patches appear to have been applied upstream.
They haven't been applied because they have never been submitted upstream (despite being tagged with "Upstream-Status: Pending")
Signature · 3 lines
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Quoted 6 lines · Alexandre Belloni
Hi,
Quoted 3 lines · Mike Crowe
Upstream has started using automake which means that the recipe must now inherit from autotools and pkgconfig.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The source tree has been reorganised too which requires the paths in the patches to be modified. None of the patches appear to have been applied upstream.
They haven't been applied because they have never been submitted upstream (despite being tagged with "Upstream-Status: Pending")
That's the problem with "Pending" - it doesn't really mean that the original author has specific plans in place to get the patches upstream, and because there's no systematic tracking of "Pending" patches there's also no pressure to do so once the patch has been accepted into OE-core.
Signature · 6 lines
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.